Why was the slab cracking thread pulled?

[snizzenfixit]

I wonder why all that info on breaking into the CGC slabs has been pulled. Meth posted some good pics on how easy it actually is to open the slabs and get the certs out, but that info is gone completely unless I am just missing something here. Hmmm, come to think of it, Meth usually posts in the morning and I haven't seen any posts from him this morning. You don't think they would pull the posts about the slab cracking and put him in the penalty box do you? They always say that they let us speak our minds on here but that would definitely be censoring, don't you think?

 

Phil

 

[AlexH]

I can't say I am surprised. It was fairly detailed. I don't agree with it, but I can understand their position if they did remove it...

[snizzenfixit]

I don't agree with it, but I can understand their position if they did remove it...

 

Not me, it seems to me that maybe they should have thanked him. Meth is not Einstein for heavens sake. If he could figure it out, someone else could figure it out too. That would mean he actually did them a favor by posting it here instead of some other forum.

 

Phil

 

[AlexH]

Do you really think that will happen??? I don't. Did they change their casings after they realized that one small knock will pretty much crack the glass? No!

 

Do you really think this will change the way they do business? Maybe, but not right away.

 

I do agree Meth did us all a public service and I hope that he was not taken off the board for it. But I still think that it was smart for CGC to take off the postings so no one else might get the idea to try it.

 

It had never even crossed my mind that something like that could be done to it. Imagine if someone who had no qualms about ripping people off, got a hold of this type of information? Just a thought...

[snizzenfixit]

Imagine if someone who had no qualms about ripping people off, got a hold of this type of information?

 

Yeah, that is my point. Meth is not going to be the ONLY guy who figured this out. CGC can not patrol EVERY forum on the internet. This info is bound to get out anyway. For that matter, Meth COULD if he wanted to, go to any forum and give the same info out to anyone, and it would all be out of the reach of CGC. That is why they should be thanking him, and working to rectify the problem.

 

Phil

 

[OldGuy]

If Meth wants to send me the pics I'll host them on my FTP.

[Bronty]

Meth was banned!

 

I've lobbied Arch to bring him back, I don't think he was intentionally offside on this one.

 

Dan

[Guest]

Meth banned... interesting, but not surprising really. Maybe now there will be less psycho, freakout, battle royales every week.

[Architecht]

Nope. Meth is sitting in the penalty box while the issue was being evaluated.

 

Bottom line: We don't want any content on the boards that "aids and abetts" fraudulent behavior. And the posts that were removed were dangerously close to a how-to manual on deceptive practices - although they were not out and out instructions, they were still bad news.

 

Meth's role in this was evaluated closely for two reasons:

 

1) He was the only guy being really explicit about the stuff

 

2) He has a... uhm... checkered past on these boards?

 

The thread has been reviewed and he will be restored to normal permissions tomorow.

 

The thread itself was pulled because we feel that it isn't good for anyone involved to perpetuate discussions about tampering with holders. It's just a bad scene all the way around. While discussion of the potential dangers of holder-tampering, and/or ways to detect it or prevent it, or what to watch out for, etc. are ok --- things that may make it more likely that unscrupulous people will mess with the holders and/or indulge in any other kind of fraudulent behavior are not.

 

Regards,

Arch

[lighthouse]

Thanks for a frank and honest reply to the thread about this situation.

[supapimp]

battle royals? hey they're fun, it's fun to watch some jackarse thump their chest and make a complete fool of themselves.

[snizzenfixit]

The thread itself was pulled because we feel that it isn't good for anyone involved to perpetuate discussions about tampering with holders. It's just a bad scene all the way around. While discussion of the potential dangers of holder-tampering, and/or ways to detect it or prevent it, or what to watch out for, etc. are ok --- things that may make it more likely that unscrupulous people will mess with the holders and/or indulge in any other kind of fraudulent behavior are not.

 

Well OK, but isn't that censorship? I mean this is the only forum on the entire internet, where banning someone (or penalizing them) for this type of post would even be considered. It is CGC's board and they can do as they wish, but to me this rings strongly of biased censorship.

 

Phil

 

[supapimp]

BTW - damn! i went out last night and missed the thread before it got deleted

[MikeS]

Nah, it would only be censorship if the Feds showed up at Arch's work and ordered him to remove the offending post. Like you said, it's their board and they can do whatever they want. If one disagrees with how they run the CGC board, one can always go and start their own or post the same information to another board. Save "censorship" for when the gov't wants to take away your right to read Cherry Poptart, Playboy, or any other "adult/mature" material.

 

[snizzenfixit]

Save "censorship" for when the gov't wants to take away your right to read Cherry Poptart, Playboy, or any other "adult/mature" material.

 

Censorship extends a good deal further than pornography.

 

If one disagrees with how they run the CGC board, one can always go and start their own or post the same information to another board.

 

That was my original point. This info could have been posted anywhere but here, and if it were, it would be out of the reach of CGC. There would have been no penalty for posting ANYWHERE else. That is by definition a biased censorship.

 

Like you said, it's their board and they can do whatever they want.

 

Right, but then at least be honest about what it is. If you see a chink (No Supa, not that kind ) in CGC's armor, speaking up about it can be hazardous to your freedom to post here.

 

Phil

 

 

 

[MikeS]

Censorship extends a good deal further than pornography.

 

Oh yeah, I agree 100%. Just the first couple of things that came to mind.

 

I guess since it's their board, I feel that they can do whatever they want. I might not agree with it, but I'm not the one paying for the server/web design/etc.

 

I would hope that they don't make a habit of it, and that it would be a very rare occurence.....

[Architecht]

Well OK, but isn't that censorship? I mean this is the only forum on the entire internet, where banning someone (or penalizing them) for this type of post would even be considered. It is CGC's board and they can do as they wish, but to me this rings strongly of biased censorship.

 

Sure. I guess it is.

 

Look, the bottom line is this - we don't think that fraud-enabling information has a place on these boards. It's just bad for the hobby. It's true - that kind of a standard IS a restriction on the freedom to post anything whatsoever. Just like the famed example of yelling fire in a crowded theater is an example of the limits of freedom of speech. Hopefully, this is one restriction that the community can support. Thus far, there have only really been two limits placed on posting to these boards:

 

1) Things must remain civil - no profanity, no needless personal insults, no physical threats

2) No fraud-encouraging communication

 

These seem to me to be pretty reasonable and healthy restrictions. They are rules whose ultimate goal is not a self-serving "biased censorship," but a preservation of comic collecting as a healthy and safe hobby. I think we have proven over the existence of this board that there's not much that we restrict - including many posts that have been far less than glowing reviews of CGC or other members of the Certified Collectibles Group. It surprises me a bit that you would feel that we have been less than fair here - but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

I know that various people have and will cite the truism that "it's their board they can do what they want with it" as justification for any kind of moderation placed on these boards - because that is, in fact, how the law sees these things.

 

You should understand that we do not feel this way. The moderation of these boards is designed to be guided by principles - which we openly express - that encourage a healthy and positive atmosphere for the hobby. The definiton of healthy to us includes the full range of diverse opinions and perspectives that are out there - including threads on market crashes and why people don't like to have their comics CGC'd, etc. etc..

 

It just does not extend to posts that encourage fraud. The only reason Meth was sort of "collared" in relation to this was to determine whether he had an agenda in that thread and with those posts that might deliberately be encouraging fraud. This doesn't seem to be the case, and thus no action has been taken other than a time-out long enough to evaluate the situation.

 

We are trying, and have tried to be as even-handed and open as possible with respect to these boards. We may make an occasional mistake. We may miss a call here and there - but our intentions, I feel, are in the right place. Our actions, I feel, are not whimsical but guided by openly expressed principles. Our principles, I feel, are shaped around keeping the hobby healthy, not around self-serving bias.

 

Hopefully you all can feel that way too. If not, we can talk about it.

 

Arch

[snizzenfixit]

OK Arch, I can certainly live with all of that. I think those are reasonable standards. My feelings on the fairness of the situation are based more on the fact that, rather than investigating Meth's motivation for the post and THEN deciding whether punishment was warranted, there was more of a "Guilty until proven innocent" approach taken. I would guess that you can see a certain amount of unfairness in that approach as well.

 

I am seeing that you are quite reasonable, and willing to listen. Two qualities that I certainly respect, and I think maybe assuming guilt was more of an oversight than an attempt to sweep any possible source of embarassment under the rug. So I can accept the two listed "limits", I would only ask that persons not be penalized in the future, until it has been established that there is truly a reason to penalize, in the first place.

 

Phil

 

[blowout]

.....after all is said and done though arch, can cgc see the flaws in the holder that meth has brought to light?

.....whatever his motives, surely you acknowledge that there is a risk of the holders being tampered with (an unacceptablty easy one in it seems).....

.....will cgc take this information on board and actually improve the design of the holders?

[OldGuy]

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. Information is our friend, not the enemy. A bad person will do bad things and a good person wont (for the most part). The fact that I can learn how to make a pipe bomb on the internet hasn’t motivated me to do so. Showing people how they could get scammed isn't going to create scammers. If someone want to rip people off on E-bay by tampering with CGC cases then they will, regardless of what's posted in this forum.

 

I'm disappointed in your reactions to the thread in question and I've lost some respect for you. I know what I think won’t affect the situation, but I needed to say it. I don't really even like Meth, but my feelings about this don't even have anything to do with him, it's about you and whoever else made this bad decision.